Merged Serial Podcast

kwill

Muse
K
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
722
This American Life producer Sarah Koenig has created a monster. Maybe.

She's producing a podcast called Serial that takes apart the story of a 15-year-old murder conviction, one week at a time, over a planned twelve-week period. Koenig is investigating leads even as she writes and records each week & claims to be only "70%" certain how her story will end.

The question she starts with is, who is lying? There's one guy in prison today (Adnan Syed), apparently convicted on the strength of the testimony of another guy (Jay), who was never in jail. Both of them were teenagers when the crime was committed, and one or both of them are (or were) definitely lying. The evidence is oh-so-sketchy. The victim was an 18-year-old girl (Hae Min Lee), the former girlfriend of Adnan.

Episode #6 will be up tomorrow . . . it's interesting on a bunch of levels. One is the basic question of guilt or innocence. Another is the competence/integrity of the investigators. Another is the meta story that's developing around the work that Koenig is doing.

Among other things, a large group of commentators has sprung up over at Reddit, dissecting the podcast and expanding the information presented by quite a lot. So you have this new art/entertainment form being deconstructed in real time by an army of armchair detectives, with the possibility of an innocent man being granted a new trial. I think Koenig & Co may not have anticipated quite the frenzy that has developed.

You also have a blog being run by the woman (Rabia Chaudry) who pitched the story to Koenig in the hope that it would get public attention to Adnan, who is a friend of her family and whom she's certain is innocent.

Anybody else listening? Fair warning: it's addictive.
 
Of anyone is interested, This American Life has a new spinoff series called Serial. It is very interesting and apparently has been far more of a success than they ever imagined.

This first mini series is about a 17-year old who has been incarcerated for the last 15 years for the murder of his ex-girlfriend. It appears maybe he didn't do it. Or maybe he did. IMO, regardless of guilt or innocence, he did not get a fair trial, that is for sure.

The link is here: Serial Podcast
 
kwill said:
This American Life producer Sarah Koenig has created a monster. Maybe.

She's producing a podcast called Serial that takes apart the story of a 15-year-old murder conviction, one week at a time, over a planned twelve-week period. Koenig is investigating leads even as she writes and records each week & claims to be only "70%" certain how her story will end.

The question she starts with is, who is lying? There's one guy in prison today (Adnan Syed), apparently convicted on the strength of the testimony of another guy (Jay), who was never in jail. Both of them were teenagers when the crime was committed, and one or both of them are (or were) definitely lying. The evidence is oh-so-sketchy. The victim was an 18-year-old girl (Hae Min Lee), the former girlfriend of Adnan.

Episode #6 will be up tomorrow . . . it's interesting on a bunch of levels. One is the basic question of guilt or innocence. Another is the competence/integrity of the investigators. Another is the meta story that's developing around the work that Koenig is doing.

Among other things, a large group of commentators has sprung up over at Reddit, dissecting the podcast and expanding the information presented by quite a lot. So you have this new art/entertainment form being deconstructed in real time by an army of armchair detectives, with the possibility of an innocent man being granted a new trial. I think Koenig & Co may not have anticipated quite the frenzy that has developed.

You also have a blog being run by the woman (Rabia Chaudry) who pitched the story to Koenig in the hope that it would get public attention to Adnan, who is a friend of her family and whom she's certain is innocent.

Anybody else listening? Fair warning: it's addictive.
Click to expand...

I am! And, just to add to the addiction, there is now a Monday night thing with Rabia which will be a weekly event.

So, what do you think? This last episode was a tough one in that it changed my opinion 180°.
 
Just discovered it this afternoon, and have listened to two episodes so far. One thing that definitely bugged me. In the first episode they make a big deal out of discovering the "alibi" witness. They try to confirm Syed (the murderer) was at the library that day. Did the library have security videos back then? Yep, but they were on videotapes and erased (written over) every week. Did they have sign-in sheets for the computers? Yes, but just pieces of paper that certainly have not been saved for 15 years.

But the most easily checked part of the alibi witness' testimony--that it was snowing that afternoon--they did not try to corroborate for six weeks (until last week actually). Turns out no snow that day. So the alibi witness--the highlight of week 1--turns out to be wrong.
 
I'm totally hooked. It looks like a miscarriage of justice, and I can't wait for the next episode.
 
It's entertaining, but they spend so much time on useless bits. They spend the whole third episode on the weird guy who found the body. But it's already apparent that the murderer could only be one of two people: Jay or Adnan. Jay's kind of a goofball; I don't know why his story has so many inconsistencies; my first guess is that he was high all the time and therefore can't remember things too well.

But there's no getting around one fact; that he led the cops to Hae's car. That can't be easily explained away. Nor can the fact that Adnan's cellphone was apparently in Leakin Park at the time Jay claims he and Adnan were burying Hae's body there. Yeah, many of the other details don't appear to fit the state's timeline, but it could simply be that he's mistakenly mixing in less memorable days with this very memorable one. Or it could be that he's lying to conceal the fact that he was more involved with the murder than he claims.

But I've heard nothing so far that gives him any kind of motive for killing Hae on his own and then framing Adnan.

I also found it ridiculous that Koenig just kind of tossed off as "something you'd find in a cheesy detective novel" the notation on the back of the letter Hae had written Adnan "I'm going to kill." The context makes it clear that Adnan had written that part.

I think it's pretty transparent that he did indeed kill her.
 
Here's an interesting detail in a recent article about the appeal in the case:

Syed's attorney for the appeal, C. Justin Brown, also questions whether Gutierrez failed Syed by not following up on his request to inquire if prosecutors were offering a plea deal.

Syed believed he was entitled to a plea offer because other jail detainees had asked him repeatedly “what his offer was,” as if it were an option all defendants could consider.
Click to expand...

So he was ready to consider pleading guilty back in 1999? Funny how Koenig has never mentioned that!
 
Last edited:
kwill said:
I'm in the who-the-hell-knows category, mostly because the key elements of Wilds' story seem to have been crafted to match some of the cell phone evidence rather than being corroborated by it. He told it several different ways (where the murder happened, where he was shown the body, how the grave was dug, etc.)

I haven't seen anything that looks convincing in terms of motive for either of them, and especially Syed. He's a good suspect as a former boyfriend, but wow. The descriptions of him provided by other students and teachers who knew him well are far more like Amanda than like a violent & bitter ex.

The only person who claimed that Syed really wanted Hae Lee dead was Wilds -- the guy who also knew where and how she was buried and where her car had been left.

I trust your instincts, so I'm a little surprised. It all seems pretty sketchy to me. And the Kercher case has taught me that stringing together behavioral "evidence" to construct a motive is sometimes an act of cruelty.
Click to expand...

The Syed case is like a number of others I have encountered. Here is one that was on 48 Hours last year:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/loved-to-death-2/

These cases are perplexing because they involve a motive that doesn't seem adequate to explain the crime, and they sometimes involve unlikely perpetrators.

Just a few weeks ago, a shooting took place in a school cafeteria not far from where I live. The shooter was a well-liked and seemingly well-adjusted kid. Everyone who knew him was stunned that he would do this. He targeted several people, because of a grudge that was centered on a girl who had rejected him. She was one of the victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysville_Pilchuck_High_School_shooting

So... Syed is a plausible fit for this murder, no matter what his supporters say.

I think it's possible to sort out the problems with Wilds' story, e.g., the non-existent pay phone and a timeline for the murder that is barely possible.

The obvious explanation is that Wilds was present when the murder took place, and he doesn't want to admit that. He lied about the circumstances and time frame surrounding the murder itself, to remove himself from the picture, but the cops poked holes in his story, so he revised it.

Wilds' account of the evening, however, lines up with facts that can be corroborated, including witness statements and cell tower data.

The evidence against Syed is thin, but it is unyielding. It defies any explanation other than he killed this girl with Wilds as his accessory or co-conspirator. I would need to see a credible alternative scenario, supported by evidence, before I could seriously consider the possibility that Syed was wrongfully convicted.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Just a few weeks ago, a shooting took place in a school cafeteria not far from where I live. The shooter was a well-liked and seemingly well-adjusted kid. Everyone who knew him was stunned that he would do this. He targeted several people, because of a grudge that was centered on a girl who had rejected him. She was one of the victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysville_Pilchuck_High_School_shooting
Click to expand...

Well, that makes us neighbors, because I'm in the Pacific northwest too.

So... Syed is a plausible fit for this murder, no matter what his supporters say.
Click to expand...

I get stuck on that . . . mostly because the cases differ in one critical way. The Marysville kid had a gun, which makes killing almost instantaneous and allows for a quick suicide after. The Syed case was a manual strangulation that involved a prolonged encounter. They don't seem that similar to me.

I think it's possible to sort out the problems with Wilds' story, e.g., the non-existent pay phone and a timeline for the murder that is barely possible.
Click to expand...

Again, not sure. Wilds was still revising his crime narrative on his 3rd interview with the police, and not in a way that got closer to what would have been possible with Syed's participation. My sense is that he's one of those unfortunate people who just finds it easier to spin tales than to say what happened. Clearly, though, he knows.

The obvious explanation is that Wilds was present when the murder took place, and he doesn't want to admit that. He lied about the circumstances and time frame surrounding the murder itself, to remove himself from the picture, but the cops poked holes in his story, so he revised it.
Click to expand...

They didn't, though. Or at least not in the transcribed version of the interview I read. The cops were actively helping him to arrange the details of one of his versions and not trying at all to push him for the actual one.

Wilds' account of the evening, however, lines up with facts that can be corroborated, including witness statements and cell tower data.
Click to expand...

But there's a perfectly coherent narrative of the crime that also matches the cell phone logs/tower data that doesn't include Syed. It's told in detail here.

The evidence against Syed is thin, but it is unyielding. It defies any explanation other than he killed this girl with Wilds as his accessory or co-conspirator. I would need to see a credible alternative scenario, supported by evidence, before I could seriously consider the possibility that Syed was wrongfully convicted.
Click to expand...

Yeah . . . I'm not there. I think the evidence is thin AND dependent on the testimony of only one person. And that person could not land on a credible version of the events of the day. Before the police talked with him, he told various versions to friends, and after they talked with him, he still revised his statements in court.

There are too many issues before I get past reasonable doubt, including:

--The state's witness being given a private attorney to help negotiate his (very attractive) plea deal before he was ever charged, even though he admitted to helping bury a body and destroying evidence. He got probation and no jail time.

--The failure of the defense attorney to even interview a potential alibi for the time the state said the murder took place.

--The failure of the police to have DNA tests done on either the PERK or several items found at the grave site.

--The reliance on cell phone towers as if it were GPS-specific, combined with the difficulty of knowing who had the phone.

I dunno, Charlie. Again, I really do trust your instincts, but I keep waiting for the penny to drop on this one. So far it hasn't. Ayed has steadfastly said for 15 years that he knows nothing, had no reason to kill her, and can't remember specifics about the day. He was in the habit of letting people use his car, he'd owned his phone for exactly one day, and he was in school, where phones wouldn't have been common or useful in 1999. It seems very possible that he really does not have a clue how that girl was killed.

When the UVA Innocence Project looked at all the case files and said there was enough reasonable doubt to take the case, I took that as confirmation that things were shaky on the prosecution side.
 
Brainster said:
But the most easily checked part of the alibi witness' testimony--that it was snowing that afternoon--they did not try to corroborate for six weeks (until last week actually). Turns out no snow that day. So the alibi witness--the highlight of week 1--turns out to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. No, I don't think that's quite clear. The alibi witness remembered that school was cancelled for the following two days. She remembered it because she ended up staying with the boyfriend who was mad at her for talking with the suspect.

School was cancelled for the following two days, so that part fits. She remembered it (15 years later) as being because of a snowstorm. The storm wasn't snow, it was ice. That's what she got wrong.

It might still be bogus, but I don't think the type of weather makes her memory of the encounter completely unreliable.
 
kwill said:
Well, that makes us neighbors, because I'm in the Pacific northwest too.

I get stuck on that . . . mostly because the cases differ in one critical way. The Marysville kid had a gun, which makes killing almost instantaneous and allows for a quick suicide after. The Syed case was a manual strangulation that involved a prolonged encounter. They don't seem that similar to me.
Click to expand...

I don't see these details as constituting a fundamental difference in terms of the mind set at work. It dumbfounded everyone who knew this kid. He just didn't seem like the type, but he was wounded by this girl's rejection, and no one doubts that he did in fact resort to murder because of it.

Take a look at the 48 Hours case too. That is a closer parallel to Syed in some ways. But every case involves different circumstances and personalities.

kwill said:
But there's a perfectly coherent narrative of the crime that also matches the cell phone logs/tower data that doesn't include Syed. It's told in detail here.
Click to expand...

It's coherent, but I'd need some reason to believe it other than, "it's possible and it fits the phone records." Wilds didn't know this girl all that well, and did not have a history with her.

kwill said:
Yeah . . . I'm not there. I think the evidence is thin AND dependent on the testimony of only one person. And that person could not land on a credible version of the events of the day. Before the police talked with him, he told various versions to friends, and after they talked with him, he still revised his statements in court.

There are too many issues before I get past reasonable doubt, including:

--The state's witness being given a private attorney to help negotiate his (very attractive) plea deal before he was ever charged, even though he admitted to helping bury a body and destroying evidence. He got probation and no jail time.

--The failure of the defense attorney to even interview a potential alibi for the time the state said the murder took place.

--The failure of the police to have DNA tests done on either the PERK or several items found at the grave site.

--The reliance on cell phone towers as if it were GPS-specific, combined with the difficulty of knowing who had the phone.

I dunno, Charlie. Again, I really do trust your instincts, but I keep waiting for the penny to drop on this one. So far it hasn't. Ayed has steadfastly said for 15 years that he knows nothing, had no reason to kill her, and can't remember specifics about the day. He was in the habit of letting people use his car, he'd owned his phone for exactly one day, and he was in school, where phones wouldn't have been common or useful in 1999. It seems very possible that he really does not have a clue how that girl was killed.

When the UVA Innocence Project looked at all the case files and said there was enough reasonable doubt to take the case, I took that as confirmation that things were shaky on the prosecution side.
Click to expand...

I'm not going by instincts. I'm going by a knowledge of murder cases. This one looks familiar: an apparently normal teenage boy suddenly kills a girl who rejected him. It doesn't seem to make sense, but it's a type of murder that really does happen.

I readily admit that this case is very thin, and there may have been all kinds of problems with the trial. My main interest is what really happened, i.e., the murder itself. I'm open to new information, but from what I have so far, I'm siding with the explanation that fits the known facts and fits with what I have seen many times before.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
My main interest is what really happened, i.e., the murder itself.
Click to expand...

Mine, too. I continue to think there's something wrong with the case, but I guess we'll see.

I did watch that wrenching 48 hours . . . it's the same in some ways. Popular couple, end of high school, ex boyfriend. The Syed case, though -- no forensics, no depression, no awareness from anybody that he was disintegrating, no worried friends/parents about his inability to deal with the breakup, and above all (for me) no drinking.

My own history includes more experience than I want to consider closely about how alcohol and violence mix. If Syed's story included booze, I'd be very skeptical about his innocence.

Add in the sketchy witness. And the way he went about his life for weeks after. And that he seems genuinely not to remember the details of that day. I don't know. He's the obvious suspect, but to me he's not the obvious killer.
 
kwill said:
Mine, too. I continue to think there's something wrong with the case, but I guess we'll see.

I did watch that wrenching 48 hours . . . it's the same in some ways. Popular couple, end of high school, ex boyfriend. The Syed case, though -- no forensics, no depression, no awareness from anybody that he was disintegrating, no worried friends/parents about his inability to deal with the breakup, and above all (for me) no drinking.

My own history includes more experience than I want to consider closely about how alcohol and violence mix. If Syed's story included booze, I'd be very skeptical about his innocence.

Add in the sketchy witness. And the way he went about his life for weeks after. And that he seems genuinely not to remember the details of that day. I don't know. He's the obvious suspect, but to me he's not the obvious killer.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

No, he's not an obvious killer.

You might be interested in the Kathleen Peterson case. Her husband Michael was convicted of her murder, but the conviction was overturned, and I believe he's awaiting a new trial. He's a likable and highly intelligent man, a successful writer. He has a following of supporters who are sure he is innocent.

His story is that his wife fell down a staircase. (Interestingly, it's the second time in his life this man has been first on the scene of a fatal staircase fall involving a woman he knew well.)

But, the pathologist who examined Kathleen Peterson noted injuries that were incompatible with a staircase fall. So, Peterson's supporters came up with the theory of an owl strike that precipitated a staircase fall. Could be, right? I don't happen to think it is very likely, but I can't say it's impossible. Nor is it impossible that Jay Wilds killed Syed's ex-GF for no apparent reason.
 
kwill said:
Hmmm. No, I don't think that's quite clear. The alibi witness remembered that school was cancelled for the following two days. She remembered it because she ended up staying with the boyfriend who was mad at her for talking with the suspect.

School was cancelled for the following two days, so that part fits. She remembered it (15 years later) as being because of a snowstorm. The storm wasn't snow, it was ice. That's what she got wrong.
Click to expand...

Read the blog post:

Asia McClain, Adnan’s potential alibi witness, tells Sarah she specifically remembers seeing Adnan after school on Jan. 13 at the Woodlawn Public Library. She says she remembers that day because of the snow. It was possibly “the first snow of the year” and she remembers getting snowed in at her boyfriend’s house that night. She also thinks that school was cancelled the next two days.
Click to expand...

So she's wrong about it being January 13 on three details: That it snowed that day (the reason she says she remembers that day), she's wrong that it was the first snow of the year (it snowed steadily on January 8, only a few days before), and she's wrong about getting snowed in at her boyfriend's house. The only part that fits is the bit about that school was cancelled for the next two days.

The part that really concerns me, though, is the bit about Adnan asking about a plea deal. It should be obvious that Koenig would approach the story with a bias towards proving Adnan innocent. It makes for a more compelling story, and since Adnan is already in prison for the crime, it's not like an advocate for his guilt is really needed.

But given that, it seems to me that Koenig should be bending over backwards to present all the evidence in favor of his guilt. Otherwise we run into the problem of an unreliable narrator. In the last episode, she states that Adnan was adamant about not admitting his guilt after his conviction at the sentencing phase of the trial, that his intent all along was to appeal, and that he was angry at his lawyer for even asking the judge to consider the murder as a crime of passion rather than premeditation, since that was tacitly admitting his guilt. None of this fits very well with him asking his lawyer what kind of a plea deal the prosecution was offering.

I am also troubled that Koenig did not broadcast Adnan's actual taped statement prior to sentencing, instead providing us with a summary.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Read the blog post:



So she's wrong about it being January 13 on three details: That it snowed that day (the reason she says she remembers that day), she's wrong that it was the first snow of the year (it snowed steadily on January 8, only a few days before), and she's wrong about getting snowed in at her boyfriend's house. The only part that fits is the bit about that school was cancelled for the next two days.

The part that really concerns me, though, is the bit about Adnan asking about a plea deal. It should be obvious that Koenig would approach the story with a bias towards proving Adnan innocent. It makes for a more compelling story, and since Adnan is already in prison for the crime, it's not like an advocate for his guilt is really needed.

But given that, it seems to me that Koenig should be bending over backwards to present all the evidence in favor of his guilt. Otherwise we run into the problem of an unreliable narrator. In the last episode, she states that Adnan was adamant about not admitting his guilt after his conviction at the sentencing phase of the trial, that his intent all along was to appeal, and that he was angry at his lawyer for even asking the judge to consider the murder as a crime of passion rather than premeditation, since that was tacitly admitting his guilt. None of this fits very well with him asking his lawyer what kind of a plea deal the prosecution was offering.

I am also troubled that Koenig did not broadcast Adnan's actual taped statement prior to sentencing, instead providing us with a summary.
Click to expand...

I don't think she is a consciously unreliable narrator, but she's an entertainer, a story teller. She is encouraging her listeners to peer into the shadows and imagine possibilities. And they are doing that.

The alibi for the 2:36 call, even if it could be established and it held up, would not get Syed off the hook. It would be further evidence that Wilds lied to protect himself, not that Syed is innocent. The murder might have taken place later that afternoon, and/or at a different location, while Wilds waited 20 yards away in Syed's car, knowing what was happening.

As for the plea discussions, I can cite cases where people have pled guilty outright, and have later been exonerated with incontrovertible proof of their innocence. Chris Ochoa comes to mind.

In general, demeanor, behavior, statements, lies, and legal strategy are not reliable evidence of guilt or innocence. Corroboration is the key in a circumstantial case based on witness testimony. With that principle in mind, the case against Syed, stripped to its essentials, is as follows:

- When questioned, Wilds made an accusation against Syed, a plausible suspect, and he corroborated the accusation by taking police to the victim's missing car.

- Cell tower data puts Syed's phone, if not Syed himself, in the area where the victim's body was found, on the night the victim went missing, at the hour when Wilds claims he and Syed were burying the body at that location.

That's it. Either it is enough to convict, or it's not. I think it is enough. As lean as this evidence is, it is hard. It defies any alternative explanation other than Wilds did the crime on his own or with a different accomplice. That is deeply unlikely IMO.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I don't think she is a consciously unreliable narrator, but she's an entertainer, a story teller. She is encouraging her listeners to peer into the shadows and imagine possibilities. And they are doing that.

The alibi for the 2:36 call, even if it could be established and it held up, would not get Syed off the hook. It would be further evidence that Wilds lied to protect himself, not that Syed is innocent. The murder might have taken place later that afternoon, and/or at a different location, while Wilds waited 20 yards away in Syed's car, knowing what was happening.

As for the plea discussions, I can cite cases where people have pled guilty outright, and have later been exonerated with incontrovertible proof of their innocence. Chris Ochoa comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Not really a very comparable case. Ochoa contended that his confession was obtained under police pressure and that he was facing the death penalty. Syed was not facing the death penalty and the only duress that I can see he was under was the pressure of the trial.

I am not saying that Syed is guilty because he would have considered a plea deal. It may quite simply be that seeing the amount of evidence against him he figured he was well and truly screwed even though he was innocent. However, this does not comport with the way Koenig has presented the case. My criticism is more with the presentation of the material by the show.

That brings up another thing that bugs me. Several times, Koenig and others (some of the folks on the Innocence Project) have ridiculed the notion that Hae's breaking up with Adnan is sufficient motive. Why, people break up all the time, and it rarely results in murder. True enough, but when the murder occurs between folks in a romantic relationship (boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife), I suspect that is a fairly common motive.

In general, demeanor, behavior, statements, lies, and legal strategy are not reliable evidence of guilt or innocence. Corroboration is the key in a circumstantial case based on witness testimony. With that principle in mind, the case against Syed, stripped to its essentials, is as follows:

- When questioned, Wilds made an accusation against Syed, a plausible suspect, and he corroborated the accusation by taking police to the victim's missing car.

- Cell tower data puts Syed's phone, if not Syed himself, in the area where the victim's body was found, on the night the victim went missing, at the hour when Wilds claims he and Syed were burying the body at that location.

That's it. Either it is enough to convict, or it's not. I think it is enough. As lean as this evidence is, it is hard. It defies any alternative explanation other than Wilds did the crime on his own or with a different accomplice. That is deeply unlikely IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
In the latest episode, Koenig finally (at the very end) acknowledges that Adnan's appeal includes the fact that his lawyer never asked for a plea deal. But she presents it in the best possible light, letting Adnan explain that very few first-degree murder trials end in acquittal. I don't know if this is true (OJ comes to mind as a counter-example), but why is Koenig only disclosing this to us in Episode 10? Did Adnan conceal this from her?

And she still has not mentioned the problems with the alibi witness on the show.
 
Brainster said:
In the latest episode, Koenig finally (at the very end) acknowledges that Adnan's appeal includes the fact that his lawyer never asked for a plea deal. But she presents it in the best possible light, letting Adnan explain that very few first-degree murder trials end in acquittal. I don't know if this is true (OJ comes to mind as a counter-example), but why is Koenig only disclosing this to us in Episode 10? Did Adnan conceal this from her?

And she still has not mentioned the problems with the alibi witness on the show.
Click to expand...

If she's a U.S. crime reporter, she wouldn't exactly see plea negotiations as a smoking gun.

We also learned for the first time that the prosecutor set Wilds up with a lawyer. That is quite unusual and a point for the defense. But, none of this changes the core facts of the case.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
If she's a U.S. crime reporter, she wouldn't exactly see plea negotiations as a smoking gun.
Click to expand...

Not a smoking gun as far as Adnan's guilt or innocence. But at this point I see it as a smoldering gun as far as Koenig's objectivity.

We also learned for the first time that the prosecutor set Wilds up with a lawyer. That is quite unusual and a point for the defense. But, none of this changes the core facts of the case.
Click to expand...

It is interesting, certainly. I am not sufficiently experienced in the law to say that a prosecutor recommending a defense attorney to a prosecution witness is out of the ordinary.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Hmm.

No, he's not an obvious killer.

You might be interested in the Kathleen Peterson case. Her husband Michael was convicted of her murder, but the conviction was overturned, and I believe he's awaiting a new trial. He's a likable and highly intelligent man, a successful writer. He has a following of supporters who are sure he is innocent.

His story is that his wife fell down a staircase. (Interestingly, it's the second time in his life this man has been first on the scene of a fatal staircase fall involving a woman he knew well.)

But, the pathologist who examined Kathleen Peterson noted injuries that were incompatible with a staircase fall. So, Peterson's supporters came up with the theory of an owl strike that precipitated a staircase fall. Could be, right? I don't happen to think it is very likely, but I can't say it's impossible. Nor is it impossible that Jay Wilds killed Syed's ex-GF for no apparent reason.
Click to expand...

I watched that documentary, too. It was flat painful to witness the defense team trying so hard to come up with a way the horrifying amount of blood could have happened under their falling-down-the-stairs theory. To me it was obvious they knew it wasn't going to fly.

Michael Peterson is getting a new trial, is that right? I find the owl theory a LOT more believable than the idea that he killed Kathleen: the marks on her scalp, the feather, the quantities of blood . . . but Serial has convinced me that I might just be irrationally willing to give people more benefit of the doubt than they ought to get.
 
Brainster said:
In the latest episode, Koenig finally (at the very end) acknowledges that Adnan's appeal includes the fact that his lawyer never asked for a plea deal. But she presents it in the best possible light, letting Adnan explain that very few first-degree murder trials end in acquittal. I don't know if this is true (OJ comes to mind as a counter-example), but why is Koenig only disclosing this to us in Episode 10? Did Adnan conceal this from her?
And she still has not mentioned the problems with the alibi witness on the show.
Click to expand...

She certainly knew about it; she studied the documentation herself & it's in the appeal that has already failed. I think she put it into the 10th episode because it was part of the trial, not because she was trying to hide it. It's not evidence of anything that he asked his lawyer what might be possible. He'd been in jail for 10 months by the time the first trial began, right? That was plenty of time to hear about plea deals from other inmates.

As far as the alibi witness . . . Koenig outright said that the 2:36 call from the Best Buy did not happen. She found a credible person who told her that she is 100% positive that Hae Lee was still at the campus then.

Both these things -- the failure to follow up with the alibi, and the failure to ask about possible terms of a plea -- are the basis of the current appeal, correct?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
. . . the case against Syed, stripped to its essentials, is as follows:

- When questioned, Wilds made an accusation against Syed, a plausible suspect, and he corroborated the accusation by taking police to the victim's missing car.

- Cell tower data puts Syed's phone, if not Syed himself, in the area where the victim's body was found, on the night the victim went missing, at the hour when Wilds claims he and Syed were burying the body at that location.

That's it. Either it is enough to convict, or it's not. I think it is enough. As lean as this evidence is, it is hard. It defies any alternative explanation other than Wilds did the crime on his own or with a different accomplice. That is deeply unlikely IMO.
Click to expand...

Right there with you, up until the final sentence. :)

I would probably hang the jury based on that case, especially if I knew that Wilds had told both friends and the police multiple conflicting versions of the event, had a reputation as a teller of tall tales, had been charged two weeks after the murder (and two weeks before the discovery of Hae Lee's body) for resisting arrest, and had been given a pro bono lawyer specifically chosen by the prosecutor.

That would add up to reasonable doubt for me. And if I then looked at the evidence suggesting that Syed was hiding murderous rage, I don't think I could have been persuaded to lock him up for life.
 
Brainster said:
In the latest episode, Koenig finally (at the very end) acknowledges that Adnan's appeal includes the fact that his lawyer never asked for a plea deal. But she presents it in the best possible light, letting Adnan explain that very few first-degree murder trials end in acquittal. I don't know if this is true (OJ comes to mind as a counter-example), but why is Koenig only disclosing this to us in Episode 10? Did Adnan conceal this from her?
Click to expand...
Or maybe she has to organize the material somehow, and any kind of linear (serial?) presentation of the material must necessarily put some revelations ahead of others. Even if you binge the entire series to date, there's only so much ground she can cover in the first hour, or the first five.

I've come to realize that this story is less the story of Adnan Syed's guilt or innocence, and more the story of Sarah Koenig's journey through the case. So I don't begrudge her the order of her revelations. She's trying to make sense of the case, for herself, and she's inviting us along for the ride. Maybe we'll make the same sense of it she does, maybe we won't. And if we don't like the ride, we can always pull the cord and get off the bus.
 
kwill said:
She certainly knew about it; she studied the documentation herself & it's in the appeal that has already failed. I think she put it into the 10th episode because it was part of the trial, not because she was trying to hide it. It's not evidence of anything that he asked his lawyer what might be possible. He'd been in jail for 10 months by the time the first trial began, right? That was plenty of time to hear about plea deals from other inmates.
Click to expand...

Except that it would have been logical to bring it up in the prior episode, where she talks about how Adnan was adamant about not expressing remorse to the judge in the penalty phase of the trial, because he intended to continue maintaining his innocence. In fact, Koenig seems a bit resentful that she even has to mention it in this episode because the news stories have brought it up.

As far as the alibi witness . . . Koenig outright said that the 2:36 call from the Best Buy did not happen. She found a credible person who told her that she is 100% positive that Hae Lee was still at the campus then.
Click to expand...

But that's not the alibi witness I am talking about; I am talking about Asia McClain, who was the focus of the very first episode, and who is an important part of the current appeal.

Both these things -- the failure to follow up with the alibi, and the failure to ask about possible terms of a plea -- are the basis of the current appeal, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is my understanding.
 
kwill said:
Right there with you, up until the final sentence. :)

I would probably hang the jury based on that case, especially if I knew that Wilds had told both friends and the police multiple conflicting versions of the event, had a reputation as a teller of tall tales, had been charged two weeks after the murder (and two weeks before the discovery of Hae Lee's body) for resisting arrest, and had been given a pro bono lawyer specifically chosen by the prosecutor.

That would add up to reasonable doubt for me. And if I then looked at the evidence suggesting that Syed was hiding murderous rage, I don't think I could have been persuaded to lock him up for life.
Click to expand...

We are approaching this differently. Your approach seems to be intuitive - you find it hard to believe Syed would do this, whereas Wilds seems like someone who might.

That is not how I think. You have mentioned my instincts a couple of times. I don't think my instincts are especially good, which is why I don't rely on instinct or character assessments in a case like this.

I rely on a certain method of thinking, which I have developed from studying many crimes. I have found that most murders, even the strangest of them, usually fit into broad categories, involving motives and patterns of behavior that have become familiar to me.

I therefore start my inquiry by asking myself what happened. What kind of crime am I looking at?

This case does not look like a sexual homicide, which is the first thing I think of when a teenage girl is murdered. Nor does it seem to be criminal enterprise. It wasn't incidental to some other act, it wasn't random violence by a deranged individual, and it wasn't terrorism or political violence.

Everything I have learned tells me this was a personal cause homicide. Somebody wanted this girl dead.

That means the killer was in the sphere of people she knew well, and it was someone who had a reason to kill her, however screwy that reason may seem to us. That fits Syed, but it doesn't fit Wilds.

And if Wilds had done it, he wouldn't have told Jenn that Syed did it, before anyone even knew the girl was missing much less dead.

To me, given the corroboration for Wilds' accusation, and the fact that his story is familiar from other murders, this case is a slam-dunk. New, factual information could convince me I am wrong. Character assessments won't convince me, because I do not trust character assessments, behavior, demeanor, or any of that. That is for the people on websleuths.
 
Thanks, that's completely logical and straightforward. I suppose that my reluctance to say, "guilty" has to do with wanting to think there are going to be reasons that are findable and understandable.
 
Serial - the podcast

Anyone been following this? It's a production by people involved with This American Life, a long form investigation into a murder case from 1999 cast over 12 episodes that range from 30-50 minutes a piece. It's been a smash hit and become the most downloaded podcast of the year and after plowing through 8 episodes today I can really see why, it's very engaging journalism. It's set over a number of different narrative arcs that really have you questioning whether the kid (he was a kid at the time) is innocent or whether he is guilty as the jury in the case found. The team go back over the case in minute detail, revisiting key characters and trying to get to the bottom of the whole affair.

If you haven't heard it already I'd certainly recommend it, perfect holiday season fare to while away the lazy afternoons.

Check it out:

http://serialpodcast.org/
 
Brainster said:
In the latest episode, Koenig finally (at the very end) acknowledges that Adnan's appeal includes the fact that his lawyer never asked for a plea deal. But she presents it in the best possible light, letting Adnan explain that very few first-degree murder trials end in acquittal.
Click to expand...

From my learned position as someone who has watched a lot of crime documentaries (:p) this seems to me a pretty common thing in the US criminal justice system - people are offered deals that see them out in 20 years or face the chance of getting death or life (sometimes multiple life) sentences. His explanation did not sound far fetched to me.

I dunno. I'm very conflicted by the whole story. I want Sayed to be innocent, I really do - I was sucked in by the narrative and his personality. But the case made by the "Dr Spock" fact checker on the podcasts team made a very good rational and objective case that if he is innocent he must be really unlucky.

I will be very interested in what the Innocence Project team come up with from the DNA requests (again, I want them to exonerate Sayed) but it is very hard to square the notion of a serial killer with Jay's evidence and overall story.

And, again, based on my deep and earned understanding of Baltimore (I watched all 6 seasons of The Wire at least three times) I find the whole issue of Jay freaking out over the van outside the video store and the "West side killers" to be strange and anomalous. Wasn't Jay supposed to be the guy with the criminal connect? If anyone had a hook into the proverbial Marlo Stanfield then it would be him and not Sayed.

I dunno. A lot doesn't make sense to me.
 
theprestige said:
Or maybe she has to organize the material somehow, and any kind of linear (serial?) presentation of the material must necessarily put some revelations ahead of others. Even if you binge the entire series to date, there's only so much ground she can cover in the first hour, or the first five.

I've come to realize that this story is less the story of Adnan Syed's guilt or innocence, and more the story of Sarah Koenig's journey through the case. So I don't begrudge her the order of her revelations. She's trying to make sense of the case, for herself, and she's inviting us along for the ride. Maybe we'll make the same sense of it she does, maybe we won't. And if we don't like the ride, we can always pull the cord and get off the bus.
Click to expand...

I binged all 12 episodes and I would agree with you.
 
Is interesting nonetheless. I'll certainly be interested in Part 2 where he makes a claim on the anonymous caller that sparked the interest in Adnan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom